Pros and Cons of Stem Cell Research

Pros (For) of Stem cell research

Medical
1.- Their ability to grow into almost any kind of cell.
2.-Stem cell research can potentially help treating a range of medical problems. It could lead us closer to cure:
Parkinson’s Disease

Alzheimer’s Disease

Heart Diseases, Stroke and Diabetes (Type 1)

Birth Defects

Spinal Cord Injuries
Replace or Repair Damaged Organs

Reduced Risk of Transplantation (You could possibly get a copy of your own heart in a heart-transplantation in the future

3.-Donation of umbilical cells is highly encouraged.
4.-There are three main sources for obtaining stem cells - adult cells, cord cells, and embryonic cells.
5.-The umbilical cord is by far the richest source of stem cells, and cells can be stored up in advance so they are available when needed.

Ethical

1.-"The benefits of stem cell research has such a great outcome, that it outweighs the ethical issues." (Cost-benefit-analysis)
2.-"If someone is going to have an abortion, isn’t it better that we use it for something useful?"

3.-Adult stem cells would not be that interesting because they do not have the same properties as stem cells from a fetus.

Cons (against) of Stem Cell Research
Medical
1.- The more distant the relationship, the more likely it is that the cells will be rejected by the immune system's antibodies, when using cord cells.
2.-Bone marrow is a rich source of stem cells. However, some painful destruction of the bone marrow results from this procedure.
3.-Embryonic stem cells are extracted directly from an embryo before the embryo's cells begin to differentiate. Those who value human life from the point of conception, oppose embryonic stem cell research because the extraction of stem cells from this type of an embryo requires its destruction.
4.-Embryonic stem cells stored over time have been shown to create the type of chromosomal anomalies that create cancer cells
5.-Mice treated for Parkinson's with embryonic stem cells have died from brain tumors in as much as 20% of cases.

Ethical
1.-"A life is a life and that should never be compromised. A fertilized egg should be valued as a human life even if it is in its very first weeks. Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical."
2.-The scientific value has been overstated or has flaws. For example we do not know for sure that we can use stem cells to clone organs to be transplanted to oneself.
3.-Both an abortion and someone dying, suffering from a major disease is a tragedy, which have the highest value? Does a breakthrough in the research justify the methods?

For Conclusion

Good morning ladies and gentlemen, dear audience and members of the jury. My name is Francisca Mancilla, and I’m presenting the summary speech from the proposition team.

It’s clearly known that Human Stem Cell research has evolved through the years, and the results have shown the powerful implications that Human Stem Cells have caused in todays medicine. It is my opinion that these implications benefit not only the scientific community, but show the value science places on human life.

Ask yourself this question: If we have the science and technology to save your sons, daughters, spouses, even your own life – would you not want it? And would you not want other people to have that same access.

Embryonic stem cells offer the ability to regenerate any kind of tissue, as well as provide valuable insights into the nature and causes of different types of cancer. In a nutshell, Embryonic Stem Cell research provides potential cures for many of the most deadly, incurable, diseases in existence today.

So why should we prohibit the research of Embryonic Stem Cells when they provide the secret to unlocking the worlds most deadly diseases?

• The opposition would have you think it is because this research sacrifices one life to save another. It is primarily an ethical argument raised on the concerns of the beginning of human life – and the implications involved.

However, the ethical argument is different than that raised by the opposition. The embryo's used in Embryonic Stem Cell are created artificially, specifically for the purpose of Embryonic Stem Cell research. So the “wasting life” argument is moot, these embryo's are specifically designed and created for the purpose of Embryonic Stem Cell research – or the research for the saving of human life from current debilitating and incurable diseases.

Additionally, Adult Stem Cell research offers less possibilities, and maintains certain critical restrictions in the development of the cell. For example, Adult Stem Cells are limited in what they can transform into, and they don't provide the basic fundamental cell knowledge critical towards curing cancer. Adult Stem Cells are beneficial, and should be researched further – but their existence is not one that justifies ignoring the promise of Embryonic Stem Cells.

• The simple fact remains that Embryonic Stem Cells have so much more potential when it comes to discovering and curing todays deadly diseases.
• In short, many leading scientists believe Embryonic Stem Cells are the most important scientific discovery ever.

For 3 Debates 2009 Carpe Diem School

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. My name's Nicol Licanqueo, and I will present the third speaker.

Presently, aborted fetus' are frozen and then thrown away. However, stem cell researchers say that It would be possible to cure many diseases with these discarded fetus'. So why throw the fetus’ away when we can cure diseases with their stem cells?

• We know that stem cells are some of the the more basic elements of organic life. They have the characteristic of regenerating and adapting to become a new part of damaged tissue.

- addittionaly -

• We can use these particular characteristics to investigate and find cures for so many diseases, like: Parkinson, alzheimers, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, and even cancer – the second leading cause of death in Chile, and in the world.(www.scielo.cl; www.cancer.org – global facts)

• Nowadays the treatment for these diseases is so expensive and physically painful that it can be unbearable for not only the patient involved but for the family invested in walking with their loved ones through the treatments. Often, the therapies are so physically damaging that death comes not from the cancer, but from the patient's body being unable to cope with the stress.

• When Barack Obama became the President of the United States, one of his first, more controversial decisions, was to eliminate the prohibition on Federal Funding for stem cell research. This was a big step for the families of cancer sufferers and other genetic diseases. Currently, aborted fetus' can be frozen, and stored for research later when researching stem cells becomes more economically feasable, presumeably when the U.S. federal government is able to fund this research.

• However, one point of contention is that many countries in the world maintain abortion is illegal, and that researching stem cells is a violation of human life. Obama argued that one reason he made his decision on behalf of the United States was because he did not want to lose a chance at changing the world . . . and it's true.

• The countries who do not back this research are losing the opportunity to cure an unnumerable amount of diseases, create an environment where suffering is no longer in the hands of disease, but can instead be cured by an infinite amount of possibilities that stem cells creates.

CONCLUSION

Many of these people who suffer don't want anything other than more time to spend with their families and loved ones. And if we accept that the first responsibility of government is to create an environment where human life can thrive, and be good, and better than it was, than not endeavoring to research stem cells is irresponsible and unhelpful – and the government wont be doing its job.

For 2 Debates 2009 Carpe Diem School

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. My name's Catalina Marquez. I am the second speaker in the proposition team.

• Today, the access to embryonic stem cells is limited. Many researchers have suggested “Adult Stem Cells”. In the case of “Adult Stem Cells” the results are not the same as embryonic stem cells, and the success rate of the therapies is expected to be lower.

• Scientists against the practice of Embryonic Stem Cell research have suggested Adult S.C. because they can be extracted from the patient’s body without problems. However, they can be used only for the organ that they were extracted from. For example, if you remove a stem cell from a human brain, that stem cell can only turn into another brain cell.

• As a result of this phenomenon researchers believe that Adult Stem Cells are not as versatile - and adult stem cells can not be manipulated - and are not as capable as embryonic stem cells to adapting to all cell types.

• Adult stem cells at the moment of their division they produce more than they supposed to do and there are more possibilities that some type of tumors or cancer could be generated from the time that they were re-inserted as a result of the cells over-replicating.

• The results of experimental Adult Stem Cell treatments, that were realized with animals, produced a 70% of death in the animals that were used at these experiments.

• The treatments with Adult Stem Cells can be longer than with the others because they have different characteristics and ways of working. Because they are less basic, scientists need more time to coerce the transformation of the cell into the proper cell type – even though the Adult Cells can only transform into their specific type, they may randomly transform into an unnecessary cell type – therefore close observation and manipulation is necessary.

• Adult Stem Cells are limited to regrowing or repairing genetic tissue – and because they are already predisposed towards specialization, they don't offer the same information about disease prevention issued by Embryonic Stem Cells.

• Whereas, Embryonic Stem Cells differentiate and reproduce from their most basic form, and can therefore reveal startling information into the nature of cancer, and the genetic disposition of cells towards certain diseases like diabetes. The promise that Embryonic Stem Cells offers is startling in its scope. And the only thing preventing the realization of these benefits is the misunderstanding people have of its potential.

For 1 Debates 2009 Carpe Diem School

Good Afternoon ladies and Gentlemen. My name's Daniela Montenero, I represent Colegio Carpe Diem School. I will present the first speaker in the proposition team.

When using human embryonic stem cells, cells can regenerate any kind of tissue and can give us valuable information about the forming tumors, which is not the case when using adult stem cells:

• Adult Stem Cells do not transform with the same freedom as embryonic stem cells. They are limited in specialization by the area in which they were removed, for example: a heart stem cell can only transform into one of the specialized cells of the heart. As a result, cells harvested from another person may not be tolerated by the human body. Therefore, they would not fulfill the functions for wich they where injected. The success rate using adult stem cells compared with embryonic stem cells is lower.
• The Embryonic Stem Cells are more basic and can transform into more specialized cells. They are able to divide and renew themselves for long periods, and can therefore be harvested much more successfully.
• Because Embryonic Stem Cells are so much more basic, and they run the entire cycle of differentiation, scientists are able to study the development of human cells. A better understanding of normal cell development will allow us to understand and perhaps correct the errors that cause certain medical contidions.
• According to the “United States National Institute of Health,” studying stem cells will help us unsderstand how they transform into the dazzlind array of specialized cells that make us what we are. Some of the most serious medical contidions, shuch as cancer and birth defects, are due to problems that occur somewhere in this process. (http://stemcells.nih.gov)
• To explain it in simpler language, when injecting embryonic stem cells in the body they are transformed into cells that can cure deadly diseases that exist today.
• Many doctors and researchers propose the idea of continue with the investigations since the results have got great medical potential. If we think about the large number of lives that can be saved through the use of stem cells there will be change in the way we think about this.
• As cancer and heart disease are two of the leading causes of death in Chile, it would only be responsible for scienctists to understand the process of cell transformation in order to help understand and cure cancer, as well as learn the process in which cells can transform and repair damaged tissue to help with other diseases like heart disease. To ignore this science is to ignore one of the most potential life saving sciences ever.

http://stemcells.nih.gov

Against Conclusion

Good Afternoon ladies and gentleman members of the jury and public in general. My name's Francisca Mansilla, and I am the summary speaker in the Opposition team.

Many questions, no answers, and a lot of conjecture are raised by the problem of Embryonic Stem Cells. At this point in our argument we will hear how many lives the study of Embryonic Stem Cells can save because of their potential – but the key word is “potential,” there is no proof other than what theory can offer.

However, if we are expected to trust in the conjecture, or theory, of an unproven, unethical science – is it not more responsible to consider the knowledge we currently have of the value of human life, and of the science that already exists with ASC which do not maintain the same controversy? Adult Stem Cell research says we can have a proven science as well as maintain our value of human life.

However, with ESC, are we going to trust the value of conjecture over the value we know exists in human life? What if Einstein was a sacrificed embryo? Or Ghandi? Or Pablo Neruda? How many Neruda’s will be sacrificed before we understand the impact of the death we are creating? Human life starts at the conception – and the creation of an embryo is past conception. Is scientific research, and knowledge, worth more than the opportunity for a child to live? Is life really that cheap?

• Or what about genetic manipulation? Are children not good enough? With all the problems children face today, now we get to tell them they were not good enough for us under normal conditions, so we had them genetically manipulated with the dead fetus of another human. What happens to the psyche of a population under the shadow of genetic perfection – when it becomes normal to change the course of nature in order to maintain our social perception of perfection?

None of these problems are present with Adult Stem Cells. There is no ethical dilemma – human life maintains its value and science is used to sustain life rather than trade life. Adult Stem Cells are currently available, and they offer a feasible alternative to the “potential” of Embryonic Stem Cells. We have heard from much of the science that Adult Stem Cells offer. One example is excellent scientific proof for curing disease, and for repairing damaged tissue. There are no rejection problems, because your tissue and cells are grown by cells harvested from your own body.

So Let’s avoid the problems that come with marketing poor women in poor countries for their eggs, and embryos. Let’s avoid the genetic “baby factories” that construct “perfect” children. Let’s avoid the publicly funded and supported devaluing of human life. We can avoid all these problems, and still have the same remarkable benefits from Adult Stem Cells. It is unnecessary, and untrue to assume that the currently legal, and funded, Adult Stem Cell programs throughout the world offer less potential than Embryonic Stem Cells. Adult Stem Cells are medically safer, much cheaper to maintain, and ethically impenetrable.

Against 3 Debates 2009 School Carpe Diem

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. My name's Nicol Licanqueo, and I present the third speaker in the Opposition team.

Adult Stem Cell therapies have been in place since the 1940's in the form of bone marrow transplants – and have been very successful -but Embryonic Stem Cells are highly unstable and they have not been found as reliable and predictable as Adult Stem Cells. One major benefit Adult Stem Cells have over Embryonic Stem Cells is that Adult Stem Cells can be harvested by the patient, and can be implanted without the risk of rejection by the patient's body. This is not the case with Embryonic Stem Cells because these cells are harvested from embryo's outside of the relation to the patient.

• According to the New England Journal of Medicine only 50 to 75% of all human embryos survive development from freezing into a human being. The rest spontaneously abort, due either to "inborn errors" such as a genetic mutation or to problems implanting.
• Additionally, more cryogenic implant pregnancies spontaneously abort than result in the successful birth of a child. Even considering the conservative estimate of 50% nonviability, when working in a laboratory with an embryo, it is impossible to know from which 50% any particular embryo has been selected.
• If embryonic stem cells happen to come from the 50% of embryos that would have proven to be nonviable (if allowed to develop normally), then those same "inborn errors" will be transferred to the patient receiving the stem cells. Clearly, this would cause more harm than good.

With this information, it is easy to understand the science behind the spontaneous rejection of Embryonic Stem Cells.They transform and change into entities the human body does not recognize. For example, Embryonic Stem Cells have a tendency to form “Teratomas,” which is a cancerous mass that appears as Embryonic Stem Cells reproduce upon themselves.

However, this problem is eliminated with Adult Stem Cells because of their tendency towards specialization. Adult Stem Cells pulled from a heart can only turn into a cell of the heart. This eliminates the tendency of the cells to spontaneously reproduce into something foreign, or cancerous. In short, they are safer, and more reliable – and they can be cloned or reproduced to cure diseases that involve tissue damage or organ loss.

To conclude, Adult Stem Cells have the capability of curing many diseases like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and spinal cord injury, without the risk of rejection. Additionally, they are safe guarded against the formation of “teratomas” because they do not spontaneously reproduce to the extent of Embryonic Stem Cells. The safer, and smarter choice is to continue with the science of Adult Stem Cells and eliminate the cost and risk associated with Embryonic Stem Cells.

Against 2 Debates 2009 School Carpe Diem

Good afternoon ladies and gentleman. My name's Sofia Castilla. I am the second speaker in the opposition team.

R: Adult Stem Cells researchers insist that they can do the much of same as ESC without the controversy or cheapening the value of human life. Embryonic Stem Cells are of interest to scientists for their medical potential – but the information is conjecture; whereas, Adult Stem Cells have a proven track record of scientific success and none of the ethical problems.

E: One of the major issues at the center of the ESC debate is the fact that it remains a theory.

• None of the science is proven – and all the research has been done, with mixed results of success and failure, on animals.
  • However, there are already plans by researchers to create a Stem Cell “infrastructure.”
  • Many of these researchers propose the idea of creating a public store of stem cells . . .
  • However, the storage of stem cells is expensive, even if stem cell medicine and research were supplemented by the government.
• So, in the future, to what extent is this expensive endeavor saved only for the people who can pay for it? Will this be an “infrasctucture for the elite.”
• And if the medical treatment is supplemented by the government, how many people need to use Embryonic Stem Cells before the expense becomes justifiable?
  • It is easy to see the direction this is following . . . are Embryonic Stem Cells the property of the elite, and rich . . . ?

A: Adult Stem Cells have a proven track record of curing diseases. Fundamentally, they are simpler, and more specific; therefore easier to manipulate – and they have been used since the 1940's in bone marrow transplants.

• ESC are more complex and difficult, therefore, en masse, this science is expensive.
• One important example of the future of the expense is Umbilical Cord Stem cells. A type of stem cell that offers promise, without the ESC controversy, and are stored with the future goal of curing diseases such as cancer, Parkinson’s and diabetes.
  • These cells are stored in private stem cells storage, which can be accessed only by people with a high purchasing power, as the storage of stem cells requires specialized care.
  • This is only a glimpse into the future of the elite Embryonic Stem Cell market. In which major amounts of research and specialized storage create additional cost.
• And, mentioned in our last argument, due to the elite nature of ESC and its cost, many poor people desperate for money will very likely look into selling their eggs and fetus' to research companies. Another forseeable byproduct of the presumeably innocent Embryonic Stem Cell Market.

L: Adult Stem Cells offer many advantages over that of ESC. Covered earlier, there are no ethical debates. You can use ASC without ever questioning your motive. The cost is kept l ow by the simple nature of donation. Adults can donate stem cells for others, or harvest their own for use on themselves. There is no business market for harvest-able embryos. ASC have been successful for the last 70 years in the form of Bone Marrow transplants – so the conjecture has given way to proof. My goal for presenting this evidence was to create a pressing question: Do we need the deaths of babies or the sale of dead fetus' on our hands in order to achieve a science that can already be utilized with the use of stem cells from adults? We can avoid any ethical questions and still achieve the same results with the use of Adult Stem Cells.

Against 1 Debates 2009 School Carpe Diem

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, members of the jury and the public in general.

My name's Daniela Aguila, I represent Colegio Carpe Diem School from Castro and I present the first speaker in the opposition Team.

Many scientists for Embryonic Stem Cell research would have you think the science and ethics behind research is mutually exclusive – or the science is an ethical justification in itself, disregarding all previous understanding of the value of human life . . . However;

Kristina Hug, Professor at Kaunas University of Medicine, Lithuania, raises two questions:

1. [Whether using “spare” human embryos for research means a lack of respect for the beginning of human life, and;
2. whether creation of embryos for research is morally worse than experimentation on already created, but unused human embryos.

According to these questions, the ethical dilemma of Embryonic Stem Cell research presents one major question:

• When does a human life begin?

Dr. Usala, of Encelle, Inc.,

• human life begins at the time an embryo is given the chance to divide and develop into a human –
  • once the process of multiplication and differentiation begins, thus begins the irreversible process of human development.
• Therefore, embryos used in stem cell research are the beginnings of human life; or, embryos are humans.

So we must ask ourselves: “Is a life for a life required?”

• The practice of embryonic research weighs saving a developed adult life against sacrificing the life of an early human.

If E.S.C. Become routine treatment, it would be accurate to say that science is sacrificing the life of a human for science.

We are using early humans as a means to an end . . . these embryos are now a mere “thing” used to solve problems, and not respected as a potential contributing human.

There are many genetic implications behind the treatments ESC offers.

• The most frightening of these implications comes from the desire for science to genetically engineer the fetus into a “perfect baby.” Sure, it would be great to be rid of diabetes, and autism – but does a woman simply ask the doctor to genetically transform her baby into something more “socially acceptable.”
  • I can't help but picture the woman asking the doctor: “Please transform my baby into something other than how he was created.”

Perhaps we should also consider the economic question:

• Will science breed a situation where women in poor developing countries – mainly from the southern hemisphere – find themselves selling their eggs to research companies in order for these companies to maintain their expensive stock?

The implications are limitless.

Whether it be the devaluation of human life, the desire to create perfect humans, or the exploitation of women and the poor – ESC research has the potential to severely damage the importance of human life.

Would it not be more responsible to stick with the already established ASC programs which respect human life by its very nature?

Or do we open the “Pandora's Box” of ESC research and risk the very antithesis of human ethics?